One of the greatest challenges facing the meat producing industry today is to provide consistent uniform quality and conformity for their end products. In beef cattle feeding the inconsistencies are the number of days an animal is fed (days on feed) to reach its maximum potential carcass value at which time the animal is referred to as finished. During the cattle feeding period the average number of days on feed for an entire pen of 300 animals is approximately 120 days. The entire pen is then marketed to a beef processor.
The inconsistencies arise because a few animals are finished after being fed only 85 days, others 95 days and still others 105 days. Larger portions of the animals are finished between 105 days and the 120- day average. These animals are over-fed and continue to gain additional unwanted body fat until the entire pen of cattle is marketed on the 120th day. Within a pen of animals, an average of 5% or 15 head are over-fed resulting in being too fat. The results are reduced prices called yield grade discounts or “Heavy” for the carcasses at the processing plant. The yield grade discount average can reduce the value of the carcass by 15-20%. An additional 10% or 30 head can be over-fed resulting in reduced carcass prices in the range of 3-5% per animal.
It might seem that a logical approach to reduce yield grade discounts would be to sort out the 30 animals on day 110 for example and deliver them to market. This solution creates two additional problems. First of all, a human visual sorting will only be partially accurate when compared to the results at the processing plant, therefore, one may not find the correct 30 animals. Secondly, the disturbance of sorting 30 animals out of the pen and the disturbance as the remaining animals re-align the pecking order within the pen can cause several days of no weight gain for the remaining 270 animals. This likely will cost the cattle feeder more than the yield grade discounts.
Another inconsistency is the portion of animals within the pen that need more than 120 days on feed to reach their maximum potential carcass value. There are an average of 115 underfed animals that are marketed with the entire pen. At the processing plant their carcasses are lighter in weight, not finished and they receive carcass discounts when they are designated by the plants as “lites”. An average of 2% or 6 animals within the entire pen of 300 animals are lites and receive carcass discounts that reduce the value of each carcass as much as 15-20% per animal.
There is also a hidden added value within this group of 115 under-fed animals. An average of 70% or 80 animals of the 115 under-fed group could be fed an additional 5-20 days allowing them to reach their maximum potential carcass value. Instead of receiving a reduced carcass value, these animals would actually receive an additional increase in carcass value of 5-10% per head as they reach their maximum carcass value.
A final inconsistency is caused by a lack of genetics that prevent a portion of the animals from reaching even the minimum carcass values. An average of 12% or 36 animals within the entire pen of 300 animals are genetically unable to attain carcass values that would provide a profit for cattle feeders. Additional days on feed will only result in additional unwanted backfat. This would not improve the quality of the meat within the carcass nor the potential carcass value. These genetic related carcass losses can range from 5% to nearly 30% per animal.
The over-fed yield grade discount losses plus the under-fed carcass discount losses plus the hidden added value plus the genetic losses combine for a total uncaptured added value potential of over 4-5% for the entire pen of 300 head of cattle. With over 25 million beef cattle fed annually, these uncaptured values are costing the industry well over $1 billion.
Historically, in that last half century, the use of individual animal identification combined with the animal's weight on the day they entered the feedlot was one of the factors used to sort the cattle into pens. As feedlots grew larger the cattle feeders soon found that an added step of having a visual human appraisal (the keen eye of a good “cattle feeder”) was helpful in sorting the cattle by size; tall and long, middle sized, or short and compact. Not unlike grouping the 1st graders, 2nd graders and 3rd graders, this procedure allowed similar sized animals to increase their daily rate of gain adding value to the bottom line.
There is another segment of the beef industry called the cow-calf operations. These operations with beef cow herds annually produce a crop of calves. The female calves are usually retained for herd replacements, however, some can go on to the feedlots and eventually to the processing plants. The majority of the male calves are raised and sold to feedlots to be fattened and then on to the processing plants. Cow-calf operators also face the challenge to provide consistent uniform quality and conformity for their calf crops that eventually become the selected meat cuts on the store shelf.
Annually, cow-calf operators struggle with critical decisions that directly effect their profits at the point of sale of their male calf crop. Other decisions effect their future herd profits when selecting female herd replacement from their female calf crop. Perhaps one of the most critical decisions that cow-calf operations make is that of bull selections. The bull selection decisions will have the greatest single impact on the future production of their cow-calf herd by introducing improved genetics into their herd. Historically, several factors have been used to make these decisions, including the keen eye of a good “cow-calf operator”, the individual identification of the bulls, cows and calves combined with live weight measurements.
Finally, the need continues within the processing (packing) plants to improve the uniform quality and conformity for the end meat products. Meat orders often consist of sorting carcasses or carcass segments that are within a certain size, weight range and quality of meat. The quality of the meat is determined by the USDA (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture) meat inspectors (graders). The carcass is severed between the 12th and 13th rib allowing the USDA grader to view a cross-sectional area of the internal longissimus dorsi muscle that is commonly referred to as the ribeye because it eventually becomes a cut known as the ribeye steak.
By using a template device and subjective visual appraisal, the USDA grader evaluates both the surface area of the ribeye and the flecks of intramuscular fat (I. Fat) within the ribeye. Flecks of I. Fat (a.k.a. marbling) or the percentage of I. Fat that is found in the ribeye area is used to grade the entire carcass. The percentage of I. Fat can vary dramatically from one carcass to another. The range of I. Fat can be as low as 1% in one carcass and as high as 12% in another carcass that would receive the highest grading as USDA Prime. More marbling within the muscle has a very positive correlation to the tenderness, juiciness, palatability and cooked flavor of the meat. The USDA grader rates each carcass as USDA Prime, USDA Choice, USDA Select, etc. With a very few exceptions, feedlot operators receive the highest price for USDA Prime carcasses and receive a lesser price with each respective grading. In turn, processing plants with very few exceptions, receive the highest price in the retail market for USDA Prime meat cuts with each respective grading a lesser price.
Historically, the USDA grader is on for one hour grading an average of 400 carcasses and then off for one hour. The question is, how exacting is the grading when comparing the beginning of the hour with the end of the hour or does the grader's accuracy in the first hour in the morning hold true after making 1600 grading decisions by the end of the day?
Similar inconsistencies can be found within segments of the swine and poultry industries. Although the variance in the degrees of inconsistency and the value placed thereon may vary, the need for consistent uniform quality and conformity remains.
The dairy cattle industry (milking cows) continually searches for means to increase milk production as well as improve correct functional conformations so that the milking females can have more productive years within the milking herd. The need to improve predicted future milk production potential in younger heifers is at the top of the priority list. Historically, there have been numerous means for predicting milk production using genetic breed improvement formulas for a small portion of the dairy cattle population. In this small portion of the population the producers maintain rigorous identification records that allow them to calculate predicted future milk production formulas from ancestor's pedigree performances. However, there are 2.4 million bred heifers sold annually into dairy herds that have no history of ancestor performance and very little or no identification.
The developing mammary system of dairy heifers (a.k.a. bred heifers) that are 30 to 60 days away from their first calving can be used to predict future milk production for that large group of bred heifers lacking identified ancestor performance. It is well known that the milk secretion cell count continually increases within the mammary system as the heifer approaches calving. It is also known that there is a positive correlation between the number of milk secretion cells in a bred heifer and her potential for future milk production. By accurately evaluating the number of milk secretion cells and providing stage of pregnancy adjustments, it is then possible to formulate predicted future milk production.
More recently, systems have evolved using two-dimensional video techniques in an attempt to measure external animal conformation, however, these systems have been very limited in that they are only able to measure a few linear conformation traits. Other systems have evolved using ultrasound technologies in an attempt to measure internal traits of an animal or carcass such as the size of a ribeye muscle, the percentage of I. Fat and the thickness of the backfat on an animal. However, ultrasound has a very low accuracy for determining the percent intramuscular fat within the animal/carcass because of an unsolvable problem referred to as “speckle”, wherein the sound waves splash in all directions when encountering a fat cell. An ultrasound system also relies heavily on a highly skilled technician to interpret the images.
Additionally, other systems combine several of the above systems for beef animals during a feedlot period using feedlot entry day images and subsequent images in combination with several age-old measuring techniques such as animal weight to calculate an optimum slaughter date and thereafter sort the animals into groups with similar slaughter dates. However, it is possible, that when several systems with limited accuracies are combined it produces a multiplying effect on the inaccuracies of the entire system.
Still other systems explain the use of a high-resolution color video camera viewing (in two-dimensional) a sliced cross-section of a carcass ribeye muscle. Using video color readings and 2-D pictorial digitized surface images, the system attempts to determine the percentage of intramuscular fat for USDA grading which is then translated in nomenclature to palatability, tenderness and yield. In addition to the low accuracy with 2-D measuring, the muscle must be severed to acquire the video images.
Thus, there is a tremendous need within the feedlot segment of the livestock industry to use the most accurate internal and external evaluations to predict a timeframe in which the animal reaches a predetermined maximum value and to sort those animals into groups of like kinds. There is also a tremendous need within the production segment (i.e. cow-calf) of the livestock industry to use the most accurate internal and external evaluations to compare offspring to parentage for genetic improvement evaluations, to compare and sort offspring with like kinds for market and future sales, to compare female offspring with like kinds to sort and determine herd replacements, and to compare potential sires with like kinds for future use in the herd with all of the above evaluations designed to achieve a predetermined maximum value. There is an additional need to use the most accurate internal and external evaluations within the processing plants to evaluate and compare carcasses to like kinds, provide grading/grading assistance and sort them for predetermined maximum value for future sales. There is still a further need within the dairy cattle industry to use the most accurate internal and external evaluations to determine the number of milk secretion cells in the developing mammary system of a bred heifer along with the over-all body conformation to predict future milk production and longevity within the milking herd.
One method for combining individual animal identification and sorting cattle is described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,617,876 issued Oct. 21, 1986 to Hayes, entitled, “Animal Identification and Control System”. This method describes identifying cattle (previously given identification or I.D.) at a water source and sorting cattle for various reasons into an “exit way pen” or an “exit way path” and then sorting them further into “holding pens”. The exit way pen or exit way path may be an unnecessary step in the sorting process. Additionally, the exit way pen, the exit way path or the holding pens provide no feed, no water and added stress for the sorted animal.
Other methods for evaluating animals is shown in U.S. Pat. No.4,745,472 issued May 17, 1988 to Hayes, entitled, “Animal Measuring System”. This method uses a video camera to take a picture of the animal with plastic patches placed on several points of the animal. The pictured is processed by a computer system to determine a few linear measurements between these points. Another method of evaluating an animal is shown in U.S. Pat. No. 5,483,441 issued Jan. 9, 1996 to Scofield, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,576,949 issued Nov. 19, 1996 to Scofield and Engelstad, with both Patents entitled, “System for Evaluation Through Image Acquisition” along with U.S. Pat. No. 5,644,643 issued Jul. 1, 1997 to Scofield and Engelstad, entitled, “Chute For Use With An Animal Evaluation System”. The above systems use a video camera for an external evaluation, so they can only measure in two-dimensions and make no reference to three-dimensional measuring. None of the above systems include any reference for internal evaluations of an animal.
An additional method for compiling animal conformation and sorting cattle into groups of like kinds by calculated slaughter dates is shown in the following U.S. Pat. No. 5,673,647 issued Oct. 7, 1997, U.S. Pat. No. 6,000,361 issued Dec. 14, 1999, U.S. Pat. No. 6,135,055 issued in Oct. 24, 2000, U.S. Pat. No. 6,318,289 issued Nov. 20, 2001 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,516,746 issued Feb. 11, 2003 all issued to Pratt and all entitled, “Cattle Management Method and System”. The methods described in all of these patents use an initial external measuring and an internal measuring of the animals as they enter the feedlot and then a remeasuring or subsequent external and internal measuring of the animals at a later point in time in the feedlot. The change from the initial measurements to the subsequent measurements are used to determine the slaughter date for the animal and then the animals are again sorted into groups of like kinds. Again, the above methods and systems rely on two-dimensional external measuring and make no reference to three-dimensional external measuring of an animal. These methods also describe the use of ultrasound for the internal measuring of animals and make neither reference to, nor provide any description of, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a means for internal measuring of animals.
Still other methods using ultrasound for internal measuring of animals and carcasses are described in the following U.S. Pat. No. 5,573,002 issued Nov. 12, 1996 entitled, “Method and Apparatus for Measuring Internal Tissue Characteristics in Feed Animals”, and No. 5,836,880 issued Nov. 17, 1998 entitled, “Automated System for Measuring Internal Tissue Characteristics in Feed Animals”, and No. 6,200,210 issued Mar. 13, 2001 entitled, “Ruminant Tissue Analysis at Packing Plants for Electronic Cattle Management and Grading Meat” with all issued to Pratt. Again, these methods also describe the use of ultrasound for the internal measuring of animals/carcasses and make neither reference to nor provide any description of any means of using MRI for internal measuring of animals/carcasses.
Another method using a high-resolution color video camera to record various colors of a severed surface cross-section of the ribeye area in a carcass to determine palatability and yield is described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,198,834 issued Mar. 6, 2001 to Belk entitled, “Meat Imaging System for Palatability Yield Predictions”. Belk's system describes many of the same techniques as used visually by USDA graders, including the measuring of intramuscular fat within the ribeye area as the foundation for grading carcasses and then with nomenclature translations derives palatability and yield. Belk did not describe or suggest the use of ultrasound or MRI as a means to determine palatability and yield in his original application which was filed Feb. 20, 1998. However, in his continuation-in-part application filed Aug. 19, 1999, Belk includes both ultrasound and MRI along with several other imaging means as possible systems for his image analysis (IA) system. In his Description of Illustrative Embodiment, Belk thoroughly explains the use of a color video IA system to determine palatability and yield. He also provides a very limited and very brief explanation of the use of tomographics (CAT or PET) and ultrasound for his (IA) system to secure the palatability and yield results. Belk fails to describe in any manner the means by which the MRI would be used in his image analysis (IA) system and makes no attempt to explain the method or means in which MRI could determine or provide palatability and yield predictions of meat. Additionally, Belk fails to explain that one advantage of MRI technology is the fact that the carcass does not need to be severed to attain intramuscular fat distribution, I. Fat percentages and ribeye surface area measurements that are used in part to determine palatability and yield.
It is thus apparent that there is a need in the art for an improved process for comparing, sorting and grading animals in to groups of like kinds by evaluating and predicting a timeframe in which an animal or carcass reaches a predetermined maximum value. There is a further need in the art for such a process to secure internal evaluations of animals or carcasses with improved accuracy. Another need in the art is to secure internal evaluations without severing a carcass. And still a further need in the art is for such a process to secure external measurements of an animal or carcass in three-dimensions. A further need is for such a process that does not require that patches be affixed to the animal before measuring. A still further need is for such a process that can measure with improved accuracy in three-dimensional means to provide linear, volume and angular measurements. An additional need in the art is for such a process that can sort animals without unnecessary exit way pens, exit way paths or holding pens all of which may not provide feed and water for the animals. There is a further need in the art for such a process with an internal evaluation that may preferably be combined with an external evaluation conducted on a single occasion that could predict a timeframe for the animal to reach a predetermined maximum value and compare or sort that animal into groups of like kinds without remeasuring or subsequent imaging the animal at a later time in the feedlot. Another need in the art for a process that can evaluate milk secretion cells within the developing mammary of a female, predict future milk production and compare and sort that animal into groups of like kinds. The present invention meets these and other needs in the art.